Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

[unknown soldier]

If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:

1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.

I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.

Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."

I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!

Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.

Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?

Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?

[TRANSPONDER]

Your apologetic was: There is no morality without God or No objective morality without a god? I think it is a flawed apologetic as survival and a successful one is the only objective that there is and a God imposing a Objective morality is just God's opinion.

So, no we do not need a god or even a dictated moral code but a survival aim is Objective' enough. And human well being is good enough, like the best art and music, and there it is not God - given but undisputable human design and preference. I see no reason for Law codes and ethics to be any different other than this human universal preference to be happy because frankly it makes us feel good. And that is the best reason you are going to get.

I think when you call this “objective enough” you are equivocating on “objective”. What you state here, in the traditional objectivism vs. subjectivism debate, is pure subjectivism.

As to theistic morality, it’s not just God’s opinion. I’ve stated reasons for why it’s not about just another opinion, but an objective truth about human nature (which isn't mirrored in atheistic evolutionary views). I have seen no attempt from you to counter those reasons; I simply see you repeating that it’s just God’s opinion.

When one is talking of human ethics 'objectivism' is hardly applicable. I've been arguing that it is only ever what is good for humans is the only objective thing one is going to get. I equated it with opinions about art or music. There are no objective universals about it and it seems unreasonable for Theists to expect that there should be.

I have tried to find the most objective aspect that there is and, as i said, that's the best we are going to get.

That being so, I have to question what moral objective Theists are going to produce and it only seems that it's God's opinion. And that is morally questionable, even if we can agree on which god it is.

If you are going to talk about objective good and bad with reference to human nature, God doesn't come into it at all. What humans regard as morals and ethics is an educated ethical instinct that can be traced back to the survival -instinct of human welfare. It's significant that the 'Golden rule' is an evolved instinct for human group co -operation that we find in animals, too.

[brunumb]

But even if you want to call that moral differences, a difference of opinion does not mean something is subjective. Scientific opinions differ but that doesn’t mean science is subjective. Opinions on what the answer to a math question is differ but that doesn’t mean math is subjective.

Your examples are faulty. If something is open to opinion then it is not objective.
adjective: objective
1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

On the other hand we have subjective.
adjective: subjective
1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Morals are based on opinions and are therefore subjective. They are primarily used to influence how people behave.

[JoeyKnothead]

I don’t think they should be.

Subjectivity.

Objectivism/subjectivitism isn’t about whether people have beliefs/opinions on matters, it’s about what kind of belief/opinion one thinks those are.

What would be true, what is true, in each of those scenarios is that morality is subjective. It's purely opinion, and can't be shown otherwise.

You keep stating that, but you don’t show why you think that or why others should think that.

To consider something moral, or not, is bound to opinion. And as opinions differ, we see morality is subjective.

Of course we might agree on a moral value, but that's still just an agreement of our subjective opinions.

If true, and is true, them ain't the same thing.

We can support any argument when we start putting in ifs.

If, in a land where goats're fast as Ferraris, the Kentucky Derby'd be held in Maranello.

Sounds logical to me, if that if ain't it no longer an if.

Now, to do what I’ve done with the moral argument, offer support that this if-conditional is actually true, that they would move the Kentucky Derby. And then offer support for this land where the goats are as fast as Ferraris being true. If you rationally do those two things, then reality would be as you say. At that point the “ifs” are no longer “ifs”. That’s what you misunderstand about philosophical arguments like the moral argument.

. <my point






Your fussing about it.

I can't show my premise is true, only that according to my premise, well, goats're fast.

Yet we've got records aplenty of folks being dunked, lopped, hung and hanged for their beliefs.

True and irrelevant. Those who dunked, lopped, hung, and hanged others try to justify why their action wasn’t torturing innocent people just for having different beliefs.

Yet they DID do, themselves, what you claim they have moral objections against doing.

They seem to have no moral objection to being hypocrites.

Those that have done this would say “that’s not what I’m doing, I'm doing this other thing."

Which is why I said, and you quoted me atelling it...

Torture is wrong to the torturee, the torturer, not so much.

We see that opinions differ, depending on who it is getting stretched out till their limbs snap off.

I’m saying you are wrong.

Of course ya are. We see, often, the god concept has a powerful mechanism for its defense, despite logical, factual data that'd pry it loose.

The torturer doesn’t think they are torturing an innocent person simply for having a different belief. The disagreement is about the fact of the matter, not the moral principle being applied to the different view of facts.

Now ask the one being tortured.

You'll find they have moral qualms against having it done to em.

But even if you want to call that moral differences,

It ain't about what I wanna call it, it's what it is.

a difference of opinion does not mean something is subjective.

Of course it does.

Objective truth is not dependent on opinion. Unless we allow for "an alternate set of facts".

Scientific opinions differ but that doesn’t mean science is subjective.

I'm gonna ask you to read that, and think on why it's such a faulty, or problematic, statement.

Opinions on what the answer to a math question is differ but that doesn’t mean math is subjective.

Math's less about morality, and more about, well, math.

Unless you're trying to say two tortures don't make a right, then I'm not so sure.

And we see you wanting to define morality as objective cause some undefined god's proud of it, and me defining it as subjective cause that's like, that god's opinion, man.

No, I’m defining the term completely apart from theism and atheism. Then I’m looking at what category theism and atheistic evolution, if true, on their own logic, would fall under.

And your definition fails to address the fact that morality is a subjective value.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #473]

I can't show my premise is true, only that according to my premise, well, goats're fast.

[The Tanager]

When one is talking of human ethics 'objectivism' is hardly applicable. I've been arguing that it is only ever what is good for humans is the only objective thing one is going to get. I equated it with opinions about art or music. There are no objective universals about it and it seems unreasonable for Theists to expect that there should be.

I have tried to find the most objective aspect that there is and, as i said, that's the best we are going to get.

That’s the question under discussion. I’m not convinced by anything you’ve said that there aren’t objective universals. You aren’t convinced by anything I’ve said to the contrary.

My main point is that your “most objective aspect,” as you’ve described it, is subjectivism. In other words, that your atheistic evolutionary view, if true, leads to subjectivism. Thus, not countering P1 of the argument. Do you agree?

That being so, I have to question what moral objective Theists are going to produce and it only seems that it's God's opinion. And that is morally questionable, even if we can agree on which god it is.

If you are going to talk about objective good and bad with reference to human nature, God doesn't come into it at all. What humans regard as morals and ethics is an educated ethical instinct that can be traced back to the survival -instinct of human welfare. It's significant that the 'Golden rule' is an evolved instinct for human group co -operation that we find in animals, too.

It’s God’s beliefs on the matter, yes, but not just an opinion. It’s a belief informed by being the creator of the purpose (which informs what ‘good’ means) and our nature, designed to fulfill that purpose. If God isn’t in the picture, if it’s atheistic evolution at least, there is no way human nature should be, it’s just the way human nature is, there is no purpose that informs what ‘good’ would be. Atheistic evolution doesn’t even provide us with a judgment that human survival is objectively ‘good’ and there is no “objective good or bad with reference to human nature.” The ‘Golden rule’ is not ‘good,’ it’s just what some humans have evolved to desire, on your view and even many of those will go back on it when it benefits them in a specific situation.

[The Tanager]

Morals are based on opinions and are therefore subjective. They are primarily used to influence how people behave.

What’s your reasoning for believing this?

[The Tanager]

To consider something moral, or not, is bound to opinion. And as opinions differ, we see morality is subjective.

There are various scientific opinions on the origin of this universe. Following your logic, that means how the universe originated is subjective.

I can't show my premise is true, only that according to my premise, well, goats're fast.

On the other hand, I offer reasoning to show my premises are true and ask you to address that reasoning.

Yet they DID do, themselves, what you claim they have moral objections against doing.

They seem to have no moral objection to being hypocrites.

Maybe they do and don’t believe they are being hypocritical. Either way, your critique is still irrelevant to my argument.

Of course ya are. We see, often, the god concept has a powerful mechanism for its defense, despite logical, factual data that'd pry it loose.

Then give the logical, factual data. If you think you have, then we obviously disagree and we can just let our posts talk for themselves, instead of trying to heap on useless repetitions of what our conclusions have been.

Now ask the one being tortured.

You'll find they have moral qualms against having it done to em.

I agree. Irrelevant to my argument.

Scientific opinions differ but that doesn’t mean science is subjective.

I'm gonna ask you to read that, and think on why it's such a faulty, or problematic, statement.

If it’s faulty, then show it is.

No, I’m defining the term completely apart from theism and atheism. Then I’m looking at what category theism and atheistic evolution, if true, on their own logic, would fall under.

And your definition fails to address the fact that morality is a subjective value.

It’s irrational to define a term in order to beg the question.

[JoeyKnothead]

To consider something moral, or not, is bound to opinion. And as opinions differ, we see morality is subjective.

There are various scientific opinions on the origin of this universe. Following your logic, that means how the universe originated is subjective.

Whether or not the origin of the universe is subjective has no bearing on my position regarding morality.

I can't show my premise is true, only that according to my premise, well, goats're fast.

On the other hand, I offer reasoning to show my premises are true and ask you to address that reasoning.

You've asserted your premises're true, while failing, miserably, to show you're correct.

But go ahead - show us this god of yours exists other'n twixt your ears.

Yet they DID do, themselves, what you claim they have moral objections against doing.

They seem to have no moral objection to being hypocrites.

Maybe they do and don’t believe they are being hypocritical. Either way, your critique is still irrelevant to my argument.

I'm content to have the observer decide that'n.

Of course ya are. We see, often, the god concept has a powerful mechanism for its defense, despite logical, factual data that'd pry it loose.

Then give the logical, factual data.

I present your posts within this thread.

If you think you have, then we obviously disagree and we can just let our posts talk for themselves, instead of trying to heap on useless repetitions of what our conclusions have been.

Oh now, don't give up so easy.

Now ask the one being tortured.

You'll find they have moral qualms against having it done to em.

I agree. Irrelevant to my argument.

Your inability to see the relevance is on you.

Scientific opinions differ but that doesn’t mean science is subjective.

I'm gonna ask you to read that, and think on why it's such a faulty, or problematic, statement.

If it’s faulty, then show it is.

You're mashing up the scientific principle with the opinion of what's moral or not.

No, I’m defining the term completely apart from theism and atheism. Then I’m looking at what category theism and atheistic evolution, if true, on their own logic, would fall under.

The problem here is your confusing a biological process - evolution - with your opinion on morality.

And your definition fails to address the fact that morality is a subjective value.

It’s irrational to define a term in order to beg the question.

No more irrational'n declaring one's subjective opinion done got turned into objective fact.

You can defeat my argument, in its entirety, by showing us all one objective moral value. But be careful, opinions.

[The Tanager]

To consider something moral, or not, is bound to opinion. And as opinions differ, we see morality is subjective.

There are various scientific opinions on the origin of this universe. Following your logic, that means how the universe originated is subjective.

Whether or not the origin of the universe is subjective has no bearing on my position regarding morality.

You're mashing up the scientific principle with the opinion of what's moral or not.

No, it’s about the principle of reasoning you used. “As opinions differ, we see morality is subjective.” Differing opinions, or beliefs, about what is true is not a rational reason to believe something is subjective no matter the subject that is being talked about. If morality is subjective, then there must be a different reason.

You've asserted your premises're true, while failing, miserably, to show you're correct.

But go ahead - show us this god of yours exists other'n twixt your ears.

I’ve given reasons and responded to critiques of those reasonings, when they are given. If you want to move the discussion forward, you must then respond to my responses instead of just sharing your opinion that “you’ve failed” or asking me to “show it”.

Your inability to see the relevance is on you.

Or your inability to see the irrelevance is on you. I have offered my reasons to think it’s irrelevant. I’m open to hearing your reasons to think it’s relevant.

You can defeat my argument, in its entirety, by showing us all one objective moral value. But be careful, opinions.

When I offer one for us to consider, you ignore it and address a straw man objective moral value. If you want to move the discussion forward, then address my actual offering.

[JoeyKnothead]

No, it’s about the principle of reasoning you used. “As opinions differ, we see morality is subjective.” Differing opinions, or beliefs, about what is true is not a rational reason to believe something is subjective no matter the subject that is being talked about. If morality is subjective, then there must be a different reason.

The mere fact of asserting something is "objectively" moral is your opinion, and does not, your protestations aside, magically inject objectivity into morality.

You've asserted your premises're true, while failing, miserably, to show you're correct.

But go ahead - show us this god of yours exists other'n twixt your ears.

I’ve given reasons and responded to critiques of those reasonings, when they are given.

"Reasonings" ain't facts. The fact is, morality is bound, unbreakable, to opinion.

If you want to move the discussion forward, you must then respond to my responses instead of just sharing your opinion that “you’ve failed” or asking me to “show it”.

I'm most certainly NOT bound to debate in a manner that brings you, or your faulty "reasonings", comfort.

I debate with the observer in mind, and feel content in knowing they're gonna think I've got me the best of our debate here.

Your inability to see the relevance is on you.

Or your inability to see the irrelevance is on you. I have offered my reasons to think it’s irrelevant. I’m open to hearing your reasons to think it’s relevant.

"Joey, that post that you, Joey, put up ain't it relevant. I know the post that you, Joey put up ain't relevant cause I fail to see the relevance in the post that you, Joey, put up."

That's the kind of "reasonings" we're getting out of you in this thread.

Now, had you, to begin with, bothered to use them fancy "reasonings" of yours to say such as, "Joey, could you explain that post a little different, so I might use my by now obviously faulty 'reasoning' to understand its relevance, I'd sure preciate that", then you might have come to understand how come it is relevant.

Instead you implied I'm violating site rules (keep posts relevant to the OP).

Where I assume folks're presenting posts they deem relevant, and I, not understanding, I figure it's a me problem...

But not you, not with that faulty "reasoner" of yours, and how bout that.

Only now do you express any intent to understand why I thought a post I presented is relevant.

You can defeat my argument, in its entirety, by showing us all one objective moral value. But be careful, opinions.

When I offer one for us to consider, you ignore it and address a straw man objective moral value. If you want to move the discussion forward, then address my actual offering.

PLEASE NOTE, A RESPONSE IS EVIDENCE, IN ITSELF, THAT YOUR ARGUMENT AIN'T BEEN IGNORED.

Again, I'm NOT bound to debate in any manner that brings you, or your faulty "reasoning" comfort.

On the issue of "strawman", it's my position that we can reduce your responses in this matter to their "core moral value".

You prefer, as is your right, to include following, or ancillary circumstances to your examples in this regard. I've never said such were -ahem- irrelevant, or not worthy of consideration, or some such similar notion. What I do say, though, is that we can, in every example you provide, look at that core moral issue, and see, immediately, that it will always be an opinion.

Morality is an opinion. All morality. Not just the worsten's we can think up, but all moral values're opinions.

This is so very important to understand now, in the face of an ascendant religious power in the USSC. Where the majority Christian / Catholics have an opinion on what's moral, where they incorrectly conclude that opinion is "objective" cause a God they can't show shares their opinion, there's nothing, NO MORAL ARGUMENT, we can present to dissuade em from stripping rights - established rights - from any group they deem unfit to have em.

We're to a point where "objective morality" has women with ectopic pregnancies being maltreated for fear a fetus might hafta die. We're to a point where "objective morality" has these few Christians outwardly expressing their "objective morality", and threatening the rights of our gay population.

The only"objective" morality on display here is the objective fact that when folks claim to speak for a god, there's gonna be some group whose rights and freedoms'll be crucified right along with em.